What Do Homomorphisms on Rings Really Mean?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter chocok
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rings
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of homomorphisms in the context of ring theory, specifically focusing on mappings involving the integers and their direct sums and products. Participants seek clarification on the nature of these mappings and their definitions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant requests clarification on what is being mapped in the context of homomorphisms, specifically mentioning the direct sum and product of integers.
  • Another participant explains that the first mapping is from the direct sum \( \mathbb{Z} \oplus \mathbb{Z} \) to \( \mathbb{Z} \), while the second is from \( \mathbb{Z} \) to the direct product \( \mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{Z} \).
  • A participant proposes specific mappings for \( \mathbb{Z} \oplus \mathbb{Z} \to \mathbb{Z} \), suggesting that mappings like \( \text{map}((a,b)) = \pm a \pm b \) could be valid as long as the output remains in \( \mathbb{Z} \).
  • Another participant corrects the previous statement by noting that \( \mathbb{Z} \) is not a field and provides examples of mappings that are well-defined, such as \( f(a, b) = a + b \) and others involving subtraction.
  • It is pointed out that while these mappings are well-defined, not all of them qualify as ring homomorphisms, particularly highlighting a specific case where the properties of homomorphisms are not satisfied.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of certain mappings as ring homomorphisms, indicating that there is no consensus on which mappings meet the criteria for homomorphisms.

Contextual Notes

There is a lack of consensus on the definitions and properties of the proposed mappings, particularly regarding their classification as ring homomorphisms. Some assumptions about the nature of the mappings and their outputs remain unaddressed.

chocok
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
can someone please explain what these mappings really means? like what is being mapped and mapped to..?? i get confused by the direct sum & product that gets mapped..

Z \oplus Z ->Z
Z -> ZxZ
 
Physics news on Phys.org
the first is a mapping from the direct sum Z circle(+) Z to Z, the second is a mapping from Z to the direct product Z x Z, I'm not sure where the confusion is, does this help?
 
thanks! can u tell me if I'm understanding correctly?

so for Z \oplus Z -> Z (say Z is the integer field),
can i have some maps like this (4 maps): map((a,b)) = \pm a \pm b
i mean as long as the value on the right side stays in Z?

and for Z \rightarrowZxZ, we are mapping from an elt to an ordered pair like
map(a)= (ca,ca) where c in Z?
 
Z is not a field

so you mean can you have the following maps
f:Z circle(+) Z ->Z given by f(a, b) = a + b
f:Z circle(+) Z ->Z given by f(a, b) = a - b
f:Z circle(+) Z ->Z given by f(a, b) = -a + b
f:Z circle(+) Z ->Z given by f(a, b) = -a - b
?
they are all well defined as is the bottom one in your post

That doesn't mean they are ring homomorphisms though(looking at the 3rd one)
f(a, b)f(c, d) = (a - b)(c - d) = ac - bc -ac + bd
f((a, b)(c, d)) = f(ac, bd) = ac - bd
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K